ALL SCI-FI

[bulldogtrekker]

Is the Star Trek Economy a Welfare State?
By Quora Contributor



Yes and no.

When people critique a welfare state, what they're usually objecting to is the notion that people deserve certain basic resources from the state regardless of how much they contribute.

In the Star Trek universe, most basic resources on Earth are essentially unlimited and are therefore distributed free of any cost or trade. The Federation has enough clean sources of energy that it will never use it all up, and it can make food, water, clothing, etc. from energy. So people who don't work and just live off the free goods being provided aren't parasites because the resources they're using don't drain the state. They're not taking it from anyone; it's just free. This would sort of be like saying: Are American citizens who don't pay for the air they use parasites?

It's also clear that there is still an economy of sorts on Earth and certain things are not free, although they are also not available for monetary purchase. Some things have to be limited in nature, so they can't be available to everyone. This means that some kind of decision matrix must be applied regarding who gets them and who doesn't, so that whatever qualities the eventual recipient has that resulted in them being awarded the good is essentially what they "paid" for the good.

Let's get a bit more concrete. As an example, Sisko's father runs a restaurant. Seats at that restaurant have to be a finite resource (because they require labor), so they would not be "free" to everyone — the owners get to choose whom they give it to. (That brings up the interesting question of whether the Federation would have anti-discrimination laws, but I digress.) Let's say Sisko chooses to feed people in his neighborhood; choosing to live in that neighborhood is the "price" his customers pay for his food. Similarly, Picard's brother makes real wine; since that requires real grapes and, again, labor, that would also be a finite resource (as opposed to synthehol, which is free to everyone). From the context, it seems likely that Picard the elder distributes his bottles to friends and family; a relationship with him is therefore the "price" of a bottle. However, he would likely also distribute bottles in "reputation trade", so if you run an outstanding French restaurant, Picard would like choose to supply you with bottles. In return, as a courtesy to a great vintner, the Picards can likely get a table at every great restaurant in France whenever they like.

Art, live theater, music, etc. — anything involving human time, labor, or creativity would constitute limited resources. Presumably, if you wanted that kind of thing you could sign up to get it — if there was too much demand, there would have to be a waiting list.

So in the Star Trek universe there are motivations to make something of yourself you demonstrate that you are a worthwhile person, which would make others more inclined to befriend you (and thus give you the fruits of their labor) or jump you to the top of waiting lists for things like real wine, spots at a restaurant or a theater show, pieces of art, human-designed clothing, etc. It's clear that Starfleet personnel are very high status and thus are cosseted in most places and given first access to things of this type; this would be a huge motivation for joining Starfleet.

I also think that this would make a huge change in the culture of work and success as we think of it today. There would be much less labor required to keep society running, so expectations regarding working time and ethics would be very different. My guess is that an average workweek in the Star Trek universe would be around 10 hours a week. People would actually think that those who worked much more than that were strange and unhealthy and obsessive, similar to how we think of workaholics who work more than 60 hours in today's world. Note how often Picard gets ragged on for working too hard and not taking vacations, despite that he clearly spends plenty of time on leisure activities like music, reading classic fiction, and amateur archeology. O'Brien on DS9 also gets ragged on by his co-workers and his wife for working too much, despite that at least a third of the time when we see him, he's either at home with his family or in Quark's having a pint and playing darts.

When 10 hours a week is all that's expected of you, it would be a lot easier and more fun to get motivated to do things like be a bartender, cook, security guard, etc., especially since by doing so, you would demonstrate to your fellow members of society that you're not a lazy slug.

People would likely be even more motivated to learn to do creative, artistic, and musical things for themselves, to design their own clothes from the replicator, to excel in fields like technological advancement and medicine and so on because they wouldn't be able to buy it from others. So custom creative work would be available to more people than can afford it now, because a lot more people would have time to do it. Similarly, technical advancement would be faster because with all people having the time to be an amateur scientist if they're so inclined the Federation would have a huge brain pool to draw from.

This also, of course, gets into what exactly we consider working. Very few, if any, humans would choose to sit on a couch doing nothing all day, every day. Everyone would choose to do something, even if it's something that today we don't consider work.

LINK:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/02/12/is_the_star_trek_economy_a_welfare_state.html

[Bud Brewster]

Most of this sounds reasonable (most of it . . . ) but I have to wonder if basic human nature can really stand the kind of free ride this all suggests.

While reading the article I thought of how most retired people tend to get a job, even though they don't need to work anymore, because they just aren't happy sitting around doing nothing, and they don't have enough hobbies and creative outlets to keep them engaged every waking hour.

Bear in mind that these are mature people who have a very different view of life after living for decades, and they are no longer physically able to do the kinds of strenuous recreational activities young people can.

So, my concern is that many young people (especially teenagers) would not develop the morality and personal integrity they would if they weren't required to work for a living.

They also wouldn't establish the confidence and the sense of self-worth that personal success in a work environment creates. Teenagers struggle to establish their own perceived self-image -- sometimes through rebellion and acts of destruction. A society that gives them a chance to succeed by compelling them earn what they want and need is a much better environment for developing maturity than a society that hands them all their basic needs without demanding anything in return.

This need for a sense of purpose is just basic human nature. But this basic nature changes as people get older. Take me, for example. I was a shy and insecure kid in my youth (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away . . . )

Now I'm a retired senior citizen, and I'm as lazy as a prize-winning hog at the State Fair, content to sit around all day making up stuff like this. But whenever I start thinking I should be doing something more productive, I just remind myself that I raised two kids, survived two marriages, endured four years in the Air Force, loaded baggage for Eastern Air Lines for sixteen years, taught school for eighteen years, wrote and published two novels, painted and drew a butt-load of artwork, created a message board that's been on the web (sporadically) for eight years, and designed the best T-shirt logo on the planet!

By the time I've thought through all these accomplishment, my urge to be more productive has passed and it's time for lunch.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[ralfy]

In the Star Trek universe, human beings are able to colonize and use resources from other planets. Given that, there is an abundance of resources. Also, many tasks, such as mining, manufacturing, etc., are almost fully automated.

[Bud Brewster]

Yes, the Star Trek universe offers boundless opportunities for people with intelligence, ambition, and personal drive. For them, it's a utopia.

But a large percentage of the population falls a bit short in one-or-more of those categories. Star Fleet tends to be populated by the people who have bags of those qualities, so when we watch the show we get the impression that things are just peachy all over.

Human nature being what it is -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow -- all those people who need either the carrot or the stick to get off their asses and do something besides suck up the unlimited resources just won't get any motivation to do so.

Don't get me wrong. I desperately wish mankind (as a whole) was up to the task of creating the bright and wonderful future we were told would happen back in the 1950s, but apparently we're just not up to the task.

But perhaps something between the rosy Star Trek utopia and the crappy nation-against-nation situation we've got now might work -- and be pretty terrific.

Roddenberry might not like it, but I think capitalism provides the carrot-and-stick that people need to get off the couch . . . and reach for the stars.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Pye-Rate]

Socialism gives us the community centered policies that are needed to survive as a species.

[Krel]

[ralfy]

It should be noted that the three major crises that are currently affecting the world--economic crashes brought about by incredible levels of unregulated financial speculation, peak oil, and global warming together with environmental damage--are results of free market capitalism.

[Bud Brewster]

[orzel-w]

[Krel]

[Bud Brewster]

[ralfy]

[ralfy]

[ralfy]

The problem with capitalism is that it actually goes against what one may describe as "human nature."

Human nature involves self-preservation, and secondarily comfort. That comfort consists of sufficient access to energy and material resources, such that there is actually such a thing as having enough.

We see this in the Star Trek universe, where there are hardly any humans who are so greedy that they seek that they seek more energy and material resources than they need or want.

In contrast, capitalism is driven primarily by money, which essentially consists of numbers in hard drives. The only goal is to come up with higher numbers, and all that for what is essentially credit. The person does not even need most of that money for personal spending.

And if there's anything that can be created easily in capitalism, it's money, which is only part of a larger credit market:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

[Bud Brewster]